Non-historian Sandro Magister claims that so-called historian Cardinal Walter Brandmüller's "memo" proves the false history or “fake news” that the "incomplete" Council of Constance unlike the complete Vatican II is supposedly a fully complete council whose ambitious teachings could be not be rejected because it is not like the "incomplete" Constance which did not have infallibly define doctrine.
Therefore, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò are near to being in schism from the supposedly infallible teachings of Vatican II teachings which are unlike Constance's teachings that can be rejected where they are heretical or ambiguously promoted heresy. Magister wrote:
"It is not surprising that when reading these lines a distinguished historian of the Church such as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, president from 1998 to 2009 of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, should have been taken aback by the errors contained therein and evident to him."
"He therefore sent Schneider a quick summary of the inaccuracies. Which he then put in writing in this note received by Settimo Cielo..."
“... The schism lasted until the assembly of Constance was joined by the other two parties as well, meaning the followers of [anti-pope] Gregory XII (Angelo Correr) and the 'natio hispanica' of [anti-pope] Benedict XIII (Pedro Martinez de Luna), which happened in the autumn of 1417. Only from that moment on did the 'council' of Constance become a true ecumenical council, albeit still without the pope who was eventually elected."
“So all the proceedings of that first 'incomplete' phase of the council and its documents did not have the slightest canonical value, although they were effective at the political level in those circumstances. After the end of the council the new and only legitimate pope, [Pope] Martin V, confirmed the documents issued by the 'incomplete' pre-conciliar assembly, except for 'Haec sancta’, 'Frequens’, and 'Quilibet tyrannus'."
[http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2020/07/13/the-%e2%80%9cfake-news%e2%80%9d-of-vigano-and-company-unmasked-by-a-cardinal/]
Here is what real Catholic historian Warren Carroll wrote:
"But for [Pope] Martin V to openly strike down this these decrees ['Haec sancta’, 'Frequens’, and 'Quilibet tyrannus'], which had been overwhelmingly approved, could have resurrected the schism... The phraseology he found was masterful. He confirmed the work of the Council... [with a ambiguous] convoluted formula... [that] can hardly [have] been unclear to any well-educated canonist."
(The Glory of Christendom, Page 502)
Well-educated Catholics who knew the traditional infallible teachings of the Church also said Vatican II teachings were a ambiguous facade which eventually would have to be corrected as were Constance's ambiguous teachings in Vatican I.
Francis's Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for Francis agreed with the traditionalist well-educated Catholics that Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae was not defined infallible teaching.
Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae "is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but... pastoral practice." (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)
The greatest living American Thomist Edward Feser gives a brief summary of the history before and after Vatican II of the teaching on this subject and the ambiguity of the document:
"That depends. In the Catholic context, the traditional teaching, vigorously and repeatedly upheld by the 19th century and pre-Vatican II 20th century popes, is that ideally Church and state ought to cooperate. Contrary to an annoyingly common misunderstanding, these popes were not teaching that non-Catholics ought to be coerced by the state into becoming Catholics. Nor were they teaching that non-Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their own religions in the privacy of their own homes, their own church buildings or synagogues, etc. Rather, the issue was whether, in a country in which the vast majority of citizens were Catholic, non-Catholics ought to be permitted to proselytize and thereby possibly lead Catholics to abandon their faith. It was not denied that there can be circumstances in which such proselytizing might be tolerated for the sake of civil order. The question was whether non-Catholics have a strict right in justice to proselytize even in a majority Catholic society. And the pre-Vatican II popes taught that they did not have such a right, and that in a Catholic country the state could in principle justly restrict such proselytizing (even if there are also cases where the state might not exercise its right to such restriction, if this would do more harm than good)."
One knows a Vatican II document is a ambiguous disaster when a defender of Dignitatis Humanae (DR) like Fr. Brian Harrison says:
"The effect DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church's worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself."
[http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Attorney Chris Ferrara has shown that the ambiguous Dignitatis Humane brought about "[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like predator ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick to flourish":
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/06/vigano-says-vatican-ii-brought-pachmama.html]
"There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of "religious liberty"-----i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a "right" attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any "right" as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce[, homosexuality] and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them." [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Was Constance's Haec Sancta like Vatican II's Dignitatis Humane ambiguous which needed correction?
Here is what even liberal scholar Francis Oakley says:
"To rescue that ecclesiological past from the long, coercive shadow cast backward by Vatican I, is to discover that the conciliarist constitutionalism expressed in Haec Sancta in fact enjoyed a good deal of life during the centuries following Constance. As Bishop Bossuet pointed out in the late seventeenth century, this type of conciliarism was the constant teaching of the theological school of Paris from the time of Constance onward, along with schools of theology right across northern Europe, from Louvain to Krakow, Vienna to Erfurt. The appeals made to it at the Council of Trent (1545–63) were so insistent as to induce the papal legates there to abandon any attempts to promote a decree concerning the precise nature of papal primacy. This was hardly surprising, given the fact that the celebrated Charles de Guise, cardinal of Lorraine and leader of the French episcopal contingent at Trent, had proclaimed himself proudly to be a Frenchman “nurtured at the University of Paris where the authority of the council is held to be above that of the pope and where those who hold to the contrary are censured as heretics...”
"... Unfortunately, however (and edging now toward my third reason), they rest on the assumption that it is somehow both possible and legitimate to stress the validity of Haec Sancta while sidestepping the provisions of Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus, with its twin definitions of papal infallibility and the papal primacy of jurisdiction—both of them reaffirmed, one should note, in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium."
[https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/authoritative-ignored]
It seems that Commonweal magazine writer Oakley is a conciliarist heretic, but he shows that the Council of Constance was, as historian Carrol said, using "phraseology [that]... was masterful. He [Pope Martin V] confirmed the work of the Council... [with a ambiguous] convoluted formula... [that] can hardly [have] been unclear to any well-educated canonist," but that was historically (like Vatican II) was in need of correction by the clear Vatican I infallible defined doctrines "of papal infallibility and the papal primacy of jurisdiction."
If the above is true, it means Schneider and Viganò are good historians who don't promote "fake news."
While apparently anti-Viganò Magister and Brandmüller are not historians who promote "fake news."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of the Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of the Mary.
Therefore, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò are near to being in schism from the supposedly infallible teachings of Vatican II teachings which are unlike Constance's teachings that can be rejected where they are heretical or ambiguously promoted heresy. Magister wrote:
"It is not surprising that when reading these lines a distinguished historian of the Church such as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, president from 1998 to 2009 of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, should have been taken aback by the errors contained therein and evident to him."
"He therefore sent Schneider a quick summary of the inaccuracies. Which he then put in writing in this note received by Settimo Cielo..."
“... The schism lasted until the assembly of Constance was joined by the other two parties as well, meaning the followers of [anti-pope] Gregory XII (Angelo Correr) and the 'natio hispanica' of [anti-pope] Benedict XIII (Pedro Martinez de Luna), which happened in the autumn of 1417. Only from that moment on did the 'council' of Constance become a true ecumenical council, albeit still without the pope who was eventually elected."
“So all the proceedings of that first 'incomplete' phase of the council and its documents did not have the slightest canonical value, although they were effective at the political level in those circumstances. After the end of the council the new and only legitimate pope, [Pope] Martin V, confirmed the documents issued by the 'incomplete' pre-conciliar assembly, except for 'Haec sancta’, 'Frequens’, and 'Quilibet tyrannus'."
[http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2020/07/13/the-%e2%80%9cfake-news%e2%80%9d-of-vigano-and-company-unmasked-by-a-cardinal/]
Here is what real Catholic historian Warren Carroll wrote:
"But for [Pope] Martin V to openly strike down this these decrees ['Haec sancta’, 'Frequens’, and 'Quilibet tyrannus'], which had been overwhelmingly approved, could have resurrected the schism... The phraseology he found was masterful. He confirmed the work of the Council... [with a ambiguous] convoluted formula... [that] can hardly [have] been unclear to any well-educated canonist."
(The Glory of Christendom, Page 502)
Well-educated Catholics who knew the traditional infallible teachings of the Church also said Vatican II teachings were a ambiguous facade which eventually would have to be corrected as were Constance's ambiguous teachings in Vatican I.
Francis's Vatican Archbishop Guido Pozzo who was negotiating with Society of Pius X for Francis agreed with the traditionalist well-educated Catholics that Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae was not defined infallible teaching.
Pozzo said that Dignitatis Humanae "is not about doctrine or definitive statements, but... pastoral practice." (Die Zeit, August 2016, Interview with Archbishop Guido Pozzo)
The greatest living American Thomist Edward Feser gives a brief summary of the history before and after Vatican II of the teaching on this subject and the ambiguity of the document:
"That depends. In the Catholic context, the traditional teaching, vigorously and repeatedly upheld by the 19th century and pre-Vatican II 20th century popes, is that ideally Church and state ought to cooperate. Contrary to an annoyingly common misunderstanding, these popes were not teaching that non-Catholics ought to be coerced by the state into becoming Catholics. Nor were they teaching that non-Catholics should be forbidden from practicing their own religions in the privacy of their own homes, their own church buildings or synagogues, etc. Rather, the issue was whether, in a country in which the vast majority of citizens were Catholic, non-Catholics ought to be permitted to proselytize and thereby possibly lead Catholics to abandon their faith. It was not denied that there can be circumstances in which such proselytizing might be tolerated for the sake of civil order. The question was whether non-Catholics have a strict right in justice to proselytize even in a majority Catholic society. And the pre-Vatican II popes taught that they did not have such a right, and that in a Catholic country the state could in principle justly restrict such proselytizing (even if there are also cases where the state might not exercise its right to such restriction, if this would do more harm than good)."
"This was the teaching which Vatican II seemed to reverse, though the relevant document, Dignitatis Humanae,
explicitly taught that it was “leav[ing] untouched traditional Catholic
doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true
religion and toward the one Church of Christ.” Yet whether the principles set out in Dignitatis Humanae really can be reconciled with the principles set out by the pre-Vatican II popes, how exactly they are to be reconciled if they can be, and which
principles are more authoritative and ought to be retained if they
cannot be reconciled -- these have all been matters of controversy.
They are controversies most Catholics, including conservative Catholics,
have avoided. The reason, it seems to me, is that the older teaching
is extremely unpopular in modern times, and thus whatever its current
doctrinal status, most Catholics are happy to let it remain a dead
letter and leave its precise relationship to Dignitatis Humanae
unsettled. Yet a question unanswered and ignored is still a real
question, and there are scholars who have in different ways attempted to
apply to this one a “hermeneutic of continuity,” including Thomas Storck, Fr. Brian Harrison, and Thomas Pink."
(edwardfeser.blogspot, "Liberalism and Islam, January 7, 2016)
(edwardfeser.blogspot, "Liberalism and Islam, January 7, 2016)
One knows a Vatican II document is a ambiguous disaster when a defender of Dignitatis Humanae (DR) like Fr. Brian Harrison says:
"The effect DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church's worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself."
[http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Attorney Chris Ferrara has shown that the ambiguous Dignitatis Humane brought about "[u]pholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality has led to widespread corruption... has required a culture of lies... that allowed men like predator ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick to flourish":
[http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/06/vigano-says-vatican-ii-brought-pachmama.html]
"There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of "religious liberty"-----i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a "right" attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any "right" as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce[, homosexuality] and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them." [http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Dec/dec14agg.htm]
Was Constance's Haec Sancta like Vatican II's Dignitatis Humane ambiguous which needed correction?
Here is what even liberal scholar Francis Oakley says:
"To rescue that ecclesiological past from the long, coercive shadow cast backward by Vatican I, is to discover that the conciliarist constitutionalism expressed in Haec Sancta in fact enjoyed a good deal of life during the centuries following Constance. As Bishop Bossuet pointed out in the late seventeenth century, this type of conciliarism was the constant teaching of the theological school of Paris from the time of Constance onward, along with schools of theology right across northern Europe, from Louvain to Krakow, Vienna to Erfurt. The appeals made to it at the Council of Trent (1545–63) were so insistent as to induce the papal legates there to abandon any attempts to promote a decree concerning the precise nature of papal primacy. This was hardly surprising, given the fact that the celebrated Charles de Guise, cardinal of Lorraine and leader of the French episcopal contingent at Trent, had proclaimed himself proudly to be a Frenchman “nurtured at the University of Paris where the authority of the council is held to be above that of the pope and where those who hold to the contrary are censured as heretics...”
"... Unfortunately, however (and edging now toward my third reason), they rest on the assumption that it is somehow both possible and legitimate to stress the validity of Haec Sancta while sidestepping the provisions of Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus, with its twin definitions of papal infallibility and the papal primacy of jurisdiction—both of them reaffirmed, one should note, in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium."
[https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/authoritative-ignored]
It seems that Commonweal magazine writer Oakley is a conciliarist heretic, but he shows that the Council of Constance was, as historian Carrol said, using "phraseology [that]... was masterful. He [Pope Martin V] confirmed the work of the Council... [with a ambiguous] convoluted formula... [that] can hardly [have] been unclear to any well-educated canonist," but that was historically (like Vatican II) was in need of correction by the clear Vatican I infallible defined doctrines "of papal infallibility and the papal primacy of jurisdiction."
If the above is true, it means Schneider and Viganò are good historians who don't promote "fake news."
While apparently anti-Viganò Magister and Brandmüller are not historians who promote "fake news."
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of the Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of the Mary.
Comments